W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [beacon] no limits, no retry, no batching, post only

From: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:27:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOYaDdP-VpEsZK19y1koAmp52Ji6wd-XMGYo=CDdO+pw_DBDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
I agree with that too. I also felt the semantics are quite different at
this point so overloading XHR doesn't seem like a good idea. We are talking
about ignoring entity body, retrying request, persist after unload,
delaying if necessary, allowing rejection if data exceeds some size - all
too specific and different from XHR.

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote:
> > Please let me know if there are more comments. I think I've addressed all
> > comments raised so far.
> So something that we discussed in the thread but I don't think we
> really reached consensus on was whether to use sendBeacon or something
> XHR based as syntax.
> I explicitly want the beacon API to never send progress events to the
> web page. That provides more freedom for the UA to delay sending the
> beacon to a time when it makes sense (radio on but not much other
> network traffic).
> Hence I think we should stick to using the current sendBeacon syntax.
> / Jonas
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 01:27:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:37 UTC